social influence

• Compliance


  Publicly conforming with the behaviour/beliefs while in a group, while privately maintaining one's own personal beliefs.

  - Involves going along with the group even if you do not disagree with the actions.
• Identification


  When individuals conform to the behaviour in a group because membership of the group is seen as desirable and the members of the group are looked at as role models.

  - Stronger form of conformity than compliance as is both public and private
• Internalisation


  The conversion of one's private views to match the views of the majority

  - The behaviour is accepted and made a part of your belief system.
• Normative social influence (NSI)

  - Desire to be liked.

  - We conform because we want to be accepted by other members of the group and avoid rejection.

  - This encourages the agreement with the central view of the group.

  - Associated with COMPLIANCE
• Informational social influence (ISI)

  - Desire to be right.

  - Happens in ambiguous situations where we are uncertain about the correct opinion or how to behave.

  - Believe others to be correct or have more knowledge so you turn to them for guidance on how to act.

  - Associated with internalisation - continue to have that view even if group is not present.
• ISI supporting evidence


  Lucas Et Al -

  
  

  Asked students to complete maths problems (difficult or easy) and found that students were more likely to conform with the majority when the maths questions were difficult. This was especially true for those who had rated their own maths ability as poor.
• NSI supporting evidence


  Asch- Using a line judgement task, Asch found that on 12 critical trials, there was a 37% conformity rate made by participants to the incorrect answers that were given by the confederates, even when the true correct answer was obvious.
• Weakness of conformity 1

  Doesn't account for LOC and it's effects on conformity.

  
  

  1- Some people care more about being accepted and are thus more likely to be influenced by the majority and conform to be liked, rather than those who care less about being liked.

  2. ADDITIONALLY. Shute et Al found that those who have an EXTERNAL LOC are more likely to conform as they believe that the cause of their behaviour lies externally and is beyond their control.

  3 - Weakness BC it ignored dispositional/ personality-related factors
• Weakness of conformity 2

  Doesn't take into account social circumstances such as whether participants belong to an in groups VS out group.

  
  

  Deutsch and Gerard found a 7x greater rate of conformity when participants belonged to the same in group as other participants ( shared same interests and identified with them) compared to when they were in out group (didnt share same interests and did not identify with other participants).

  
  

  2 - shows that belonging to a particular group may influence conformity more so than NSI and ISI.
• Tasks affecting conformity


  Group size , Unanimity , Task Difficulty
• Group size


  Conformity rates increased as minority influence increases but there comes a point where further increases into majority does not lead to increase in conformity.

  
  

  Eg: 3 confeds = 31.8% but adding one more only increased this to 35%. No more increases as more participants were added up to 15
• Unanimity


  Conformity rates decline when majority influence is not unanimous.

  
  

  E.G : Asch - presence of a confederate who disagreed w the majority decreased conformity to 5.5% if they gave the correct answer or 9% if they gave a wrong answer.
• Task difficulty


  Conformity increases when task difficulty increases as correct answer becomes less obvious/ more ambiguous and our confidence in our own judgement decreases.

  
  

  E.G: Asch increased task difficulty by making length of comparison lines similar to each other so correct answer was less obvious.
• Research support for task difficulty

  Lucas et Al - Asked students to complete maths problems (difficult or easy) and found that students were more likely to conform with the majority when the maths questions were difficult. This was especially true for those who had rated their own maths ability as poor.
• Weakness of factors affecting conformity

  P- Asch's research employed an artificial situation.

  E- The task of matching lines is not representative of real life situations involving pressure to conform. SUCH AS - JURY DECISION MAKING - on whether someone is innocent or guilty.

  - Asch's study may only explain conformity in a non-consequential lab experiment and thus bares little similarity to real life.

  
  

  L- Decreased ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
• Weakness of factors affecting conformity 2


  The sample consists of all American males.

  
  

  Eg 1 - NETO stated that women are more concerned about social relationships and being accepted than men.

  Thus suggests that women may be more conformists than men, which Asch study does not show.

  
  

  Eg 2 - As sample is all American , results from the study may not be applicable to collectivist cultures , where there may be a higher level of conformity, as focus is on the needs of the group rather than the indifivudal (SMITH AND BOND)
• Weakness of Asch's study

  lacks temporal validity - Original study was undergone in the 1950's during the red Scare. Meaning that people were more likely to conform due to the growing concerns in society about the rise in communism.

  
  

  ALSO - Perrin and Spencer repeated the study in 1980 and found much lower rates of conformity . 1/396 trials.

  
  

  - Asch's findings are inconsistent across time and conformity was higher in general when he conducted his study. May not be applicable to today.
• social roles


  The 'parts' people play as members of various social groups.
• Zimbardo aim


  To investigate the extent to which people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing simulation of prison life.
• Zimbardo: before study


  - Zimbardo recruited an all-male 24 volunteer sample.

  - All were screened physiologically and psychologically, to ensure that the most stable non-violent and non- antisocial participants were selected.

  - Participants were then randomly allocated to prisoner or guard role.
• Zimbardo: after study


  1- Prisoners were unexpectedly arrested from their homes and taken to the prisons.

  2- Dehumanisation and deindividuation occurred through use of iD numbers in prisoners and sunglasses in guards.

  - Study was intended to run for 14 days.
• Zimbardo findings


  1. Within a day, prisoners rebelled and ripped off their numbers. Guards responded to this by confiscating their blankets.

  
  

  2. Dehumanisation occurred with guards humiliating the prisoners until they became submissive. Deindividuation occurred with prisoners referring to each other and themselves by their numbers.

  
  

  3. The prisoners became depressed. After 36 hours, one prisoner had to be released after showing symptoms of psychological disturbances. A following 3 more prisoners had to be released.

  
  

  Study ended after 6 days.
• Zimbardo conclusion


  - Conformity to social roles in a situation affects behaviour and behaviour is influenced by loss of identity.

  - Revealed power of the situation to influence people's behaviour.
• Zimbardo weakness 1 - PV

  Lacks population validity:

  
  

  P - Sample is all American males from individualist cultures so it doesn't explain conformity in females or in individuals from a collectivist background.

  
  

  E1 - COHN stated that women have more empathy than males. As guards in study were cruel and uncaring, we can assume that females would display a lower rate of conformity as they can relate more to the prisoner.

  
  

  E2- SMITH AND BOND - argue that collectivist cultures will display even higher level of conformity as group needs emphasised more than individual needs.
• Zimbardo Weakness 2 -

  Ethical issues

  
  

  1. Zimbardo's dual role as both the prison warden and researcher interfered with the psychological protection from harm of ppts.

  E.g - 36h ppt who was released after showing signs of psychological disturbances.

  WB shows that he was so engrossed in his role that ....

  
  

  PLUS - Lack of right to withdraw

  
• Zimbardo Strengths


  High control over variables.

  1- He screened for emotional stability and only selected participants who were tested and rated as emotionally stable and then randomly allocated them to either condition.

  2- Without this random allocation , if ppts were able to choose which condition , the most dom = guard and the most submissive would = prisoner.

  3. Rules out ID and so differences between groups can be tied down to social groups rather than ID.

  
  

  Cause and effect
• Zimbardo Weaknesses


  There is overexaggerated situational influence.

  According to Z, only 1/3 of guards behaved in brutal manner towards prisoners. Remaining guards applied prison rules fairly and there were others who even tried to help the prisoners.

  Shows that situation does not influence behaviour as much as Zim suggested as there were guards who did not conform to these social roles in the same manner.
• Agentic state:


  When a person believes they are acting as an 'agent' for or on behalf of an authority figure. They believe that this authority figure is responsible for their actions and so are more likely to carry out actions.

  - Opposite of autonomous state

  - We shift to an agentic state when given orders from a perceived authority figure.

  
• How did Milgram investigate agentic state?

  Interviewed ppts during the debrief stage.

  - Many reported that they knew giving shocks was wrong but they felt the experimenter was responsible , showing that they shifted responsibility to the authority figure.
• Legitimacy of authority


  we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have social power. Influenced by 1. their ability to punish us and 2. how much we trust the instructions that they give.

  
• How did Milgram investigate legitimacy of authority?

  Conducted variations of the study that affected legitimacy of authority figure. E.g.: uniform/location
• Strength of agentic state

  There is supporting evidence.

  
  

  DAMBRUN AND VATINE conducted a torture simulation and found that those who gave the most shocks held the experimenter and the victim responsible, rather than themselves.

  
  

  - Refusal to take personal responsibility shows that the agentic state does explain obedience etc as people obey even knowing that their actions r wrong.
• Strength of legitimacy of authority

  There is real-life supporting evidence for the role of legitimacy of authority.

  
  

  TARNOW conducted a review on air traffic accidents and found that 19/37 of them , a major contributory factor was the authority of the captain, which led to the co-pilot feeling unable to challenge the pilot's wrong decisions.

  
  

  This is a strength because (1) it shows that due to perceived authority of an authority figure, people will obey even when they believe the authority figure to be incorrect.

  
  

  ALSO shows that (2) the explanation is valid, not just in lab setting but also in real life threatening situations.

  
• Weakness of agentic state

  The research supporting the explanation is gender biased. In Milgram's study, all ppts were male. This is a limitation because it means that we do not know whether LoA has the same effect on females as it does for males.

  
  

  KILHAM AND MANN found that females showed lower rates of obedience and were less likely to shift to an agentic state and more likely to remain in an autonomous state.

  
  

  - Cannot use to explain agentic state in females , lacks generalisability.
• Weakness of psychological explanations of obedience

  Ignores role of dispositional factors in obedience.

  
  

  ADORNO argues that children who grow up with a strict upbringing develop an authoritarian personality and have an excessive respect for authority and are thus highly obedient.

  
  

  - supported by ELMS AND MILGRAM who found that ppts in Milgram's study who were most obedient had more authoritarian personalities (as shown by higher number on F scale) than those who were less obedient.

  
  

  - Psychological may not be only explanation, look at dispositional.
• Proximity


  The distance between persons or objects. In Milgram's study, refers to how close the teacher was to the experimenter ( authority figure)
• Proximity in Milgram's study

  experimenter in same room = 65%.

  Via telephone = 20.5%
• Location can either:


  1 - Enhance LoA of the authority figure and increase obedience (prestigious)

  
  

  2- Be appropriate or inappropriate for an authority figure to give orders in.
• Location in Milgram's study

  Rundown office block = 48%

  Prestigious university (Yale)= 65% obeyed to 450 Volts.
• Uniform


  - Official looking uniform enhances a person's LoA - more likely to obey.